energy_oil_hist

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, but does not disclose any behavioral details like data range, columns, or potential quirks. With annotations present, this is modest but acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief, consisting of a title, a URL, and a return type. It is concise and front-loaded, but it is slightly repetitive: the first line and the ':return:' line say the same thing. This minor redundancy prevents a higher score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It states the output is a DataFrame of historical price adjustment info, but provides no details on columns, time period, or data source specifics beyond the URL. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but leaves room for more context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-related information because there is nothing to add.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states '汽柴油历史调价信息' (gasoline and diesel historical price adjustment information), which is a clear resource identifier but lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'fetch'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like energy_oil_detail by specifying historical price adjustment data, but this is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusions, or related tools such as energy_oil_detail or macro_china_energy_index. The description simply repeats the title and URL without any contextual advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.